---
sidebar_position: 4
title: Code Review Guidelines
---

# Code Review Guidelines

This document outlines the code review process and expectations for the GoMFT project.

## Purpose of Code Reviews

Code reviews serve several important purposes:

- Ensuring code quality and consistency
- Identifying bugs, edge cases, and potential issues early
- Sharing knowledge among team members
- Ensuring adherence to project standards and best practices
- Validating that the implementation meets requirements

## Code Review Process

### 1. Before Requesting a Review

Before requesting a review, ensure your code:

- Passes all automated tests
- Follows the project's coding standards
- Is well-documented
- Includes appropriate tests
- Has a clear, descriptive PR title and description

### 2. Requesting a Review

- Create a pull request against the appropriate branch
- Fill out the PR template completely
- Tag appropriate reviewers based on the code being changed
- Respond to any automated CI/CD feedback

### 3. Conducting a Review

When reviewing code, focus on:

#### Code Quality
- Is the code readable and maintainable?
- Does it follow project conventions and patterns?
- Is the implementation efficient?
- Are edge cases handled appropriately?

#### Functionality
- Does the code meet the requirements?
- Does it handle error conditions properly?
- Is the user experience considered?

#### Testing
- Are there sufficient tests?
- Do tests cover edge cases?
- Are tests reliable (not flaky)?

#### Security
- Are there potential security issues?
- Is user input properly validated?
- Are credentials or sensitive data handled securely?

#### Documentation
- Is the code well-documented?
- Are public APIs clearly documented?
- Is the documentation accurate and up-to-date?

### 4. Providing Feedback

When providing feedback:

- Be specific and clear
- Offer suggestions for improvement
- Differentiate between required changes and optional suggestions
- Provide context or reasoning for requested changes
- Be constructive and respectful

Use these comment prefixes to indicate the severity of feedback:

- **Blocker:** Must be addressed before merging
- **Suggestion:** Recommended improvement, but not required
- **Question:** Request for clarification
- **Nitpick:** Minor style or formatting issue
- **Praise:** Highlight particularly good code

### 5. Responding to Feedback

When receiving review feedback:

- Address all comments
- Explain your reasoning if you disagree with a suggestion
- Ask for clarification if needed
- Thank reviewers for their input
- Mark resolved comments as such

### 6. Approving and Merging

A PR can be merged when:

- It has received approval from at least one reviewer
- All "Blocker" issues are resolved
- All automated checks are passing
- The PR has been rebased on the latest target branch

## Best Practices for Reviewers

### Focus on the Important Things
- Prioritize correctness, security, and maintainability
- Don't get too caught up in style issues that could be automated
- Consider the big picture and overall architecture

### Be Timely
- Try to review PRs within 1-2 business days
- If you can't review promptly, let the author know or reassign
- For urgent fixes, prioritize those reviews

### Be Thorough
- Take the time to understand the code
- Test the code locally if necessary
- Consider edge cases and failure modes

### Be Respectful
- Focus on the code, not the person
- Phrase feedback as suggestions or questions
- Acknowledge good work and improvements

## Best Practices for Authors

### Keep PRs Focused
- Each PR should address a single concern
- Large changes should be broken into smaller, logical PRs
- Avoid unrelated changes in a PR

### Provide Context
- Explain the purpose and approach in the PR description
- Link to relevant issues or documentation
- Point out areas where you're uncertain or would like specific feedback

### Respond Promptly
- Address feedback in a timely manner
- Ask questions if feedback is unclear
- Be open to suggestions and alternatives

### Test Thoroughly
- Test your changes locally before requesting review
- Consider edge cases and error scenarios
- Update tests to cover new functionality

## Special Considerations

### Security-Related Changes
- Security-focused changes require extra scrutiny
- At least one reviewer should have security expertise
- Consider potential attack vectors and edge cases

### API Changes
- Changes to public APIs require careful review
- Consider backward compatibility
- Ensure API changes are well-documented

### Database Changes
- Review for potential performance issues
- Consider migration strategy and backward compatibility
- Validate data integrity considerations

### UI Changes
- Consider accessibility implications
- Review for consistency with design standards
- Test on different devices and screen sizes

## Learning from Code Reviews

Code reviews are a learning opportunity:

- Take note of recurring feedback to improve future code
- Share knowledge gained from reviews with the team
- Use reviews to identify areas where documentation or guides could be improved

## Code Review Checklist

### General
- [ ] Code is well-structured and follows project patterns
- [ ] Variables and functions have clear, descriptive names
- [ ] Comments explain "why" not just "what"
- [ ] Unnecessary code is removed (commented code, debug logs)
- [ ] No hardcoded values that should be configurable

### Go-Specific
- [ ] Error handling is appropriate and consistent
- [ ] Follows Go idioms and best practices
- [ ] Concurrent code is safe and efficient
- [ ] Uses appropriate Go standard library functions
- [ ] Properly handles resources (file handles, connections)

### Frontend-Specific
- [ ] UI is responsive and accessible
- [ ] HTMX usage follows project patterns
- [ ] Templ templates are clean and maintainable
- [ ] JavaScript is minimal and follows best practices
- [ ] CSS follows project conventions

### Testing
- [ ] Tests are included for new functionality
- [ ] Tests cover edge cases and error paths
- [ ] Tests are clear and maintainable
- [ ] Mocks and fixtures are used appropriately

### Security
- [ ] Input validation is thorough
- [ ] No SQL injection vulnerabilities
- [ ] Authentication and authorization are properly implemented
- [ ] Sensitive data is handled securely

### Performance
- [ ] Code is efficient for expected scale
- [ ] Database queries are optimized
- [ ] Appropriate caching is used
- [ ] Resources are used efficiently

Remember that code reviews are a collaborative process aimed at improving the overall quality of the codebase. Both reviewers and authors should approach the process with a growth mindset and mutual respect. 